Case Name: New York Bar Assn. v. Jacoby
Case Citations: 61 N.Y.2d 130 (1984)
Facts: The New York Criminal and Civil Courts Bar Association made a written request to the Attorney General in New York in accordance to the provision of section 478 of the Judiciary law to bring the action of charging the defendants Leonardo D. Jacoby, Stephen Z. Meyers, and Gail J. Koff with the unauthorized practice of law. This also enjoin them from practicing law in New York under the firm name of Jacoby & Meyers. The firm Jacoby & Meyers is a national law firm with many offices in California and New York. The name partners Leonardo D. Jacoby and Stephen Z. Meyers are practicing lawyers in California but not in New York. Another defendant, Gail J. Koff, who is…show more content… The court found that this rule is appropriate in the application of multistate law firms in regards to the plaintiffs ground of action in section 478 of the judiciary law. The court found that there is no actual claim that Jacoby or Meyers, and any of the other partners in the firm not licensed to practice law in New York is actually practicing law here in New York. The Court states that New York Bar Association complaint is based on the misrepresentation of the firm name of Jacoby & Meyers in the belief that they are practicing law in New York because their surnames are on the firms title. The Court reject this notion because the use of surnames in a law firm does not constitute any holding that those lawyers bearing those surnames are admitted to practice law in New York. The firm name is use to describe an institution and does not represent anyone bearing a surname in correspondence with the firm name to render legal services. The defendants Jacoby & Meyers took precaution by using letterheads bearing the firm name with a listing of all their locations in New York. They also made sure to identified all the partners in their firm that are not licensed to practice in New York. The Court ruled that the defendants were entitled to summary judgement dismissing the complaint. The Court affirmed the appellate court
